set_app_source_github

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Set app source' and doesn't state whether the operation replaces an existing source, triggers a redeploy, requires permissions, or what side effects occur.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff and the main action front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it withholds useful context that could be added without bloating the text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with six parameters, four required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain what 'set app source' means operationally, what defaults apply (e.g., branch), or what the caller should expect after success.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%, and the description adds no parameter detail beyond the word 'GitHub repo,' which hints at owner/repo but doesn't clarify branch, path, or the role of projectName/serviceName. The schema's brief descriptions for only three parameters leave the other three unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set app source to a GitHub repo,' which clearly indicates the action. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling set_app_source_image by specifying GitHub repo as the source type, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_app_source_image, nor prerequisites like the app existing or a GitHub token. The only usage signal is the verb 'Set,' leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.